Lucas v. Commissioner of SSA

Filing 19

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: That 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Commissioner of Social Security be GRANTED. Objections to R&R due by 3/26/2012 Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 3/7/12. (sh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Thomas Lucas o/b/o Ivy McCoy,

:
:

v.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of
Social Security,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00429

:

Plaintiff

Judge Economus

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:
Defendant
Report and Recommendation
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on defendant Commissioner of Social
Security Michael J. Astrue’s January 6, 2012 motion to dismiss (doc. 15).
Defendant maintains that plaintiff cannot pursue his Title XVI claim for
Supplemental Security Income benefits. Even if it is determined that the claimant was
disabled, plaintiff has not established that he meets the eligibility requirements to
receive any underpayment that could be awarded based on plaintiff’s claim for
Supplemental Security Income benefits claim. Plaintiff does not oppose defendant’s
motion. See doc. 18.
The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that defendant Commissioner of Social
Security Michael J. Astrue’s January 6, 2012 motion to dismiss (doc. 15) be GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI should be

1

DISMISSED. This action continues with respect to plaintiff’s claim for benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within
fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the
Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof
in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District
Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,
380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not
raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/ Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

2